Err, that example would be religionist, not racist, right? The African folks in question are Jewish.
I'm not saying there aren't problems with racism in Israel, or that the state isn't actively cruel to people it views as different, just that your citation doesn't seem to imply racism per se.
> 4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."
The "or" there is very important. If my grandmother were a religious Jew, and she had a secular daughter, that daughter would still be a jew (a secular jew). If that daughter then births me, that is now a generation further, where my mother was not religious, I am not religious, but both my mother and I are considered to be Jews for that law.
Due to how that is worded, one can be a secular Jew, Jewish by the bloodline of the mother (aka "race"), and one can be a religious Jew. The law applies to both, so I think it's fair to say that it's a racist law.
That's an interesting argument, I do see what you're saying. I'd counter that since someone of any race can be a Jew by this definition, it doesn't exclude on the basis of race.
The intent is also quite clearly to establish the country as a religious nation, and while I'm quite glad to live in a secular nation (the US) I don't begrudge religious nations their right to exist (eg; islamic ones).
I also find the "or" wording of the law interesting.
I do think it's racist as it grants the privilege of abandoning the Jewish religion while remaining a legally privileged class (Jew) to people with some ancestries (Jewish) but not with others.
>I'd counter that since someone of any race can be a Jew by this definition, it doesn't exclude on the basis of race.
Ironically this is some sort of wordplay that Midrash experts love to use to circumvent outdated Talmud laws. Like, yeah, maybe you are right from the strict point of narrow literal interpretation that ignores any pragmatics, but who cares about that anyway.
